IQ / cognitive ability test
See what a short reasoning screen actually measures, how it is scored, and how your result is read against the population that actually fits you.
This is a short-form general-intelligence test: 16 reasoning items, each with one correct answer, designed to give a quick read on overall reasoning ability in about 10 minutes. The items sample the same kinds of reasoning a full battery uses - pattern, sequence and relational problems - but in a deliberately compact set, so the result is a broad band rather than a precise number.
The model
What it measures
Select a row to see what a short form does and does not deliver. The test estimates general cognitive ability (the g factor) from a small, mixed set of reasoning items; with only 16 items the standard error around the score is larger than on a full battery, which is the central trade-off of any short form - you gain speed and lose precision.
These three are reading aids, not separately scored subtests: a 16-item screen produces one general estimate, reported on the standard IQ metric with a percentile. What a short screen does well is sort people into broad ability bands; what it does not do is pin down a two- or three-point difference, separate verbal from spatial strengths, or certify an exact figure. For any of those, a full battery is the appropriate instrument.
A compact mix of pattern, sequence and relational problems that together index the general factor, g.
- GGeneral reasoning
A compact mix of pattern, sequence and relational problems that together index the general factor, g.
Facets: Pattern completion, Number and letter series, Verbal analogies, Matrix reasoning.
- SSpeeded performance
Working accurately under a time limit, which a short form emphasises more than a long one.
Facets: Working under time pressure, Sustained accuracy, Quick rule induction, Efficient switching.
- BBroad-band placement
Locating your performance within a wide region of the adult distribution, rather than at a precise point.
Facets: Wide confidence interval, Population percentile, Screen, not verdict, Capped at 160.
The evidence
Science and validity
A century of research finds that performance on diverse cognitive tasks is positively correlated - the basis of the general factor, g - so even a short, mixed reasoning set carries real signal about overall ability. The cost of brevity is reliability: measurement precision falls as the number of items drops, so a short screen yields a wider confidence interval around the estimated score. This is well understood in the psychometric literature and is the reason short forms are framed as screens, not definitive measurements.
Scores here use the standard IQ metric (population mean of 100, standard deviation of 15) with norms from adult test-taker data, and like all our online tests they are capped at 160, because an unsupervised online instrument cannot certify extreme values. Comparisons of average IQ between countries are scientifically contested - confounded by sampling, schooling, language and the Flynn effect - so this page makes no such claim; for high-stakes purposes such as clinical or educational placement, only an individually administered, professionally supervised test is appropriate.
Where you stand
How a score becomes a percentile
A raw score only means something against a comparison group, and on a short form it is honest to read it as a band. For example, an estimate near IQ 116 sits around the 84th percentile against adult test-taker data - higher than roughly five in six adults - but the confidence interval is wide, so treat the number as the centre of a range. Drag the slider to see how performance maps to a percentile; your real result is matched to the population that fits you, and is capped at 160.
Your result, visualised across every dimension
Take the test once and see a full profile like this example, each dimension placed against the population most relevant to you, with plain-language interpretation.
See my full profile →Example profile shown for illustration.
The reference data
Benchmarked against the population that fits you
We benchmark your result against the population that actually resembles you, across 6 reference groups.
Each reference group is used as its own benchmark, not to rank one country against another.
How it works
What the questions feel like
Illustrative statements showing the style of the items. These are examples, not the official scored items.
Series: 2, 5, 10, 17, 26, ... which option comes next?
Illustrative sequence item (not a scored item) - induce the rule (+3, +5, +7, +9) and extend it.
A 3x3 grid of figures with one cell missing - pick the option that completes the visual pattern.
Illustrative matrix item (not a scored item) - abstract pattern reasoning with one correct option among several.
Sunrise is to morning as sunset is to ___ ?
Illustrative verbal-analogy item (not a scored item) - relational reasoning expressed in language.
Work through as many items as you can, accurately, before the time limit ends.
Illustrative of the speeded format rather than a single item - calm accuracy matters more than rushing.
Honest strengths and limitations
Strengths
- Built on the public-domain ICAR item pool, so the items are openly documented and independently studied.
- Fast (about 10 minutes) and honest about its limits - framed as a screen with a known margin of error, not a verdict.
- Reports on the familiar IQ metric (mean 100, SD 15) with a population percentile for an intuitive read.
Limitations
- With only 16 items the confidence interval around the score is wide, so the result is a broad-band screen, not a precise figure; treat the number as the centre of a range.
- A short form cannot separate verbal from spatial strengths or resolve a two- or three-point difference; for a domain-by-domain profile a full battery is the right tool.
- Scores are capped at 160 because an unsupervised online test cannot certify extreme values, and average-IQ comparisons between countries are contested rather than settled fact.
See your full profile
A complete report, matched to the population that fits you, with plain-language interpretation of every trait.
Frequently asked questions
How accurate is a 16-item IQ test?
Accurate enough to place you in a broad ability band, not precise enough to pin down an exact score. With 16 items the confidence interval is wide, so treat the number as the centre of a range. For a precise, reliable score with a domain-by-domain breakdown, a full battery is the appropriate instrument.
Can a short test really measure intelligence?
It can estimate it, with a known margin of error. Because diverse reasoning tasks all draw on the same general ability (g), even a small mixed set carries genuine signal about where you stand. What shrinks with brevity is precision, not validity - so a short screen is informative for orientation but should not be read as an exact verdict.
Why is the score capped at 160?
Honest measurement. Certifying scores beyond 160 requires more extreme items and individually supervised administration than any online test can provide, and that is doubly true for a short form. Online tests that report 180 or 200 are entertainment, not measurement.
Do "national IQ" rankings mean anything?
They are scientifically contested, not settled fact. Comparisons of average IQ between countries are confounded by sampling, schooling access, language, translation and the Flynn effect (rising scores over generations). An individual result placed against a fitting reference population is meaningful; cross-country league tables are not something this test endorses.
Related tests
- Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The International Cognitive Ability Resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52-64.
- Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 453-482.
- Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.
This independent informational page describes a short cognitive-ability screen. It is built on the public-domain International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) item pool developed by David Condon and William Revelle within the SAPA Project; ICAR and SAPA are named only as the open-source origin of the items.